On 2024/1/25 22:22, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 07:53:25PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote: >> On 2024/1/24 21:15, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>>> Call Trace: >>>> <TASK> >>>> ? die+0x32/0x90 >>>> ? do_trap+0xde/0x110 >>>> ? folio_memcg+0xaf/0xd0 >>>> ? do_error_trap+0x60/0x80 >>>> ? folio_memcg+0xaf/0xd0 >>>> ? exc_invalid_op+0x53/0x70 >>>> ? folio_memcg+0xaf/0xd0 >>>> ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 >>>> ? folio_memcg+0xaf/0xd0 >>>> ? folio_memcg+0xae/0xd0 >>> >>> I might trim these ? lines out of the backtrace ... >> >> Do you mean make backtrace looks like something below? >> >> Call Trace: >> <TASK> >> split_huge_page_to_list+0x4d/0x1380 >> ? sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x80 >> try_to_split_thp_page+0x3a/0xf0 >> soft_offline_page+0x1ea/0x8a0 >> soft_offline_page_store+0x52/0x90 >> kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x118/0x1b0 >> vfs_write+0x30b/0x430 >> ksys_write+0x5e/0xe0 >> do_syscall_64+0xb0/0x1b0 >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6d/0x75 >> RIP: 0033:0x7f6c60d14697 > > Yes. I'd trim the sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x80 line too. > These lines aren't actually part of the call trace. They're addresses > that the unwinder found on the stack but don't actually fit the call > trace. It puts them in in case they're helpful, but marks them with a ? > to indicate that they're probably not part of the call trace. I see. Many thanks for your explanation. Will update backtrace in next version. Thanks.
